Insight into the Mille Lacs Input Committee Selection Process

I was one of 130 people who applied to be a part of the Mille Lacs input committee. As much as I am passionate about the lake and what it means to all my friends and family in the area I wasn’t expecting to make the cut since I do not have any direct financial stake in what is happening. So far I am aware of 3 people who made the committee and each was a resort owner, several of my friends who are also resort/bait shop owners did not make the cut either.

I thought some of you may be interested in the process that went into selection of the committee. Here is a description provided by the DNR:

We received approximately 130 nominations to participate in the Mille Lacs Advisory Committee. The Commissioner of Natural Resources appointed 6 of the 17 committee members: the tourism council chair, an academic institution representative, a Mille Lacs Band representative, and three county officials. 11 at-large members (6 representing angling interests, and 5 representing local business interests) were selected through a two-part, blind review of the nominations (i.e., all names were replaced with a unique identification number). After narrowing down the field to 26 individuals representing angling and business interests, recommended applicants were reviewed by the Fisheries Section Chief and final members were appointed by the DNR Commissioner. The final members were selected to ensure good geographic representation, as well as a diversity of angling interests, and a diversity of local business interests.

Will

Did they say when they will announce the committee? And if the committee will be allowed in the discussions between the DNR and GLIWC?

I was also one of the unchosen ones.

Can you name the 3 resort owners or would you rather keep that quiet until it is announced? Thanks…

Will and Fife – Thanks for stepping up and taking a shot. I hope those chosen are as dedicated and passionate about the issue as both of you are. If so, hopefully their voice can be heard and some positive changes can be made towards getting the lake headed back to what it once was.

BigWerm wrote:

Did they say when they will announce the committee? And if the committee will be allowed in the discussions between the DNR and GLIWC?

I’m not sure that is something that they plan to do. Understanding the desire for as much transparency as possible I would not be surprised if they do chose announce selections, but I also could understand if they chose not to announce them as members selected are volunteers and not technically public employees in any way.

They did not provide us any insight about if the committee will be allowed to attend GLIFWC discussions. The main responsibility of committee members will be to attend quarterly meetings.

roosterrouster wrote:

Can you name the 3 resort owners or would you rather keep that quiet until it is announced? Thanks…

So far I have heard that the owners for Agate Bay, Red Door, and Twin Pines were selected.

http://www.startribune.com/seventeen-appointed-to-new-lake-mille-lacs-advisory-group/330899931/

No comment…

In case Steve’s link does not work for you. (Star Trib sometimes requires log in)

Seventeen appointed to new Lake Mille Lacs advisory group
By doug smith
October 6, 2015 — 11:44am

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Landwehr has appointed 17 Minnesotans to a newly formed Mille Lacs Fisheries Advisory Committee that will give input to the DNR on fisheries management programs and related issues for Mille Lacs Lake.

The DNR says members of the committee will contribute to the broader understanding of biological, social and economic aspects of the Mille Lacs fishery and develop recommendations to advise the DNR on potential approaches and regulations.

“Group members will represent diverse perspectives and interests and provide us with valuable understanding and advice about Mille Lacs Lake,” said Landwehr. “We are pleased at the pool of applicants and believe the people on this committee will give solid and meaningful input.”

Appointed to the committee by Landwehr are members who represent a diversity of angling interests; local business and tourism interests; tribal and academic representation; and local county officials.

Angling Representatives
Mark Utne, Isle; Cheryl Larson, Wahkon; Tony Roach, Willow River; Tom Neustrom, Grand Rapids; Steven Besser, Litchfield; and Peter Perovich, Ramsey.

Business Representatives
Tina Chapman, Chapman’s Mille Lacs Resort & Guide Service, local liaison to Explore Minnesota Tourism, Isle; Eddy Lyback, Lyback’s Ice Fishing and Lyback’s Marine, Wahkon; Steve Kulifaj, The Red Door Resort, Aitkin; Steven Johnson, Johnson’s Portside, East Township; William Eno, Twin Pines Resort and launch service, Garrison; and Dean Hanson, Agate Bay Resort and launch service, Isle.

Local Officials
Mille Lacs County Commissioner David Oslin, Aitkin County Commissioner Laurie Westerlund, and Crow Wing County Commissioner Paul Koering.

Mille Lacs Band Representative
Jamie Edwards, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.

Academic Representative
Dr. Paul Venturelli, Fisheries Program, University of Minnesota.

Information about the committee structure, functions and expectations of appointed members are available on the DNR website at http://www.mndnr.gov/millelacslake

Why would they take a guide that primarily works Winnie and not another Mille Lacs guide?

These guys confuse the hell out of me.

I personally am very happy to see Tony Roach and eddy Lybak chosen I have a great deal of respect for both of them and there wealth of knowl dye on this lake and the way they represent themselves good to see them on there!

Explain Neustrom. Other then sitting on the round table and wanting all guides licensed whats he got to do with Mille Lacs? Had I known fishing Kabetogama wouldn’t have disqualified me I might have applied.

Tommy has always been the DNR’s favorite. I also am one of the Unchosen, understandable; those who disagree and are outspoken need not apply.

Ditto….

It looks like a good mix. I am surprised not to see a few names on there. I have talked with Tom a few times and his knowledge of Walleyes is incredible so I think he is a good pick. BTW he guides on many other lakes than Winnie. I see one angler that got on probably because of his experience in politics. With the business owners you have a broad range of tourism interests.

Wouldn’t you think a group that has rights to 50% of the safe harvest level, would be represented by more than 1 person or 6% of the group ???

big_g wrote:

Wouldn’t you think a group that has rights to 50% of the safe harvest level, would be represented by more than 1 person or 6% of the group ???

So you want more than 6% of that group on the committee? Helping them make their argument and fight to keep or justify their 50% harvest. I guess I must be a little unclear of what 1 person you are talking about here.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>big_g wrote:</div>
Wouldn’t you think a group that has rights to 50% of the safe harvest level, would be represented by more than 1 person or 6% of the group ???

So you want more than 6% of that group on the committee? Helping them make their argument and fight to keep or justify their 50% harvest. I guess I must be a little unclear of what 1 person you are talking about here.

Unclear of the person he is talking about??? I don’t think that is what G’s point was…RR

roosterrouster wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>fishthumper wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>big_g wrote:</div>
Wouldn’t you think a group that has rights to 50% of the safe harvest level, would be represented by more than 1 person or 6% of the group ???

So you want more than 6% of that group on the committee? Helping them make their argument and fight to keep or justify their 50% harvest. I guess I must be a little unclear of what 1 person you are talking about here.

Unclear of the person he is talking about??? I don’t think that is what G’s point was…RR

What do you think his point was? With how he feels about the situation at Mille Lacs, I think the last thing he’s want was more Natives on the Committee. But I’m not sure what other 1 person he’d be talking about.

It hits me (and I assume G…) odd that the Native American’s argument on how to ‘fix’ the problem in front of Mille Lacs Lake will only be voiced by 1 (yes only 1…) person on the panel. I would think that a group that takes 50% of the safe harvest would have more of a representation on the panel (heck even a spear chucker’ or two!). Now this doesn’t mean (as Fishthumper suggests…) that that will give them an advantage to swing things their way on how the lake will be treated. This panel is not going to make the law on what is done on fixing the problem at hand, they will be throwing out ideas against the wall and see what sticks. Maybe a brilliant idea will come out of this group that helps steer things in the right direction…

I have a feeling that this “panel” is going to receive some guidance as to what is “On” and “Off” the table as far as potential changes — read between the lines netting…
I have a strong feeling that they will be tasked with looking at things besides netting as to a solution. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what it is shaping up to look like based on who is on the panel.
To illustrate my point, if this panel comes up with suggested/requested changes to netting, timing, closure, etc would the bands even listen to this? I know I would be more than hesitant if it were me considering the poor representation on the input group.

RR

I did not suggest anything. I just did not understand why those like yourself and Big G would want more or any input by a group of people that you think should not have any input at all. Let alone the exercise of any rights granted to them by YOUR US government.

I’ll stop speaking for G…I never said I wouldn’t want any input from that side of the table (and I never said they “should not have any input at all…” Your words not mine!). Please don’t put words in my mouth. What I DID say was that it is odd that they don’t have better representation on the panel. That doesn’t mean I agree with them netting/spearing the lake but you have to understand that this is just a panel throwing out ideas. I have no issues with more folks from ‘that side’ of the table giving an opinion. I just want the d*mn lake fixed. Don’t care if the idea on how to do it comes from a netter’ or a resort owner…You assume (and ‘try’ to read between the lines…) on things that people aren’t saying…RR

Being in Management a big portion of my life, I have found when you “include” everyone equally in the discussion, thoughts and ideas, they seem to buy into them more. RR is right on with my thoughts… include them equally in meaningful, honest to goodness talks about how revive and sustain the fishery for all involved and it might actually work. Include anyone as a token and your setting everyone up for failure. I don’t subscribe to “any talks” are better than none… they should be meaningful and all inclusive.

Fishtumper, you need to go back and read posts, my issue was never with the Natives… never has been. They are doing what our DNR allows them to do. If you don’t keep an eye on the henhouse, the fox might sneak in and grab one more.

CaptainMusky wrote:

I have a feeling that this “panel” is going to receive some guidance as to what is “On” and “Off” the table as far as potential changes — read between the lines netting…
I have a strong feeling that they will be tasked with looking at things besides netting as to a solution. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what it is shaping up to look like based on who is on the panel.
To illustrate my point, if this panel comes up with suggested/requested changes to netting, timing, closure, etc would the bands even listen to this? I know I would be more than hesitant if it were me considering the poor representation on the input group.

Musky may have a point. Would it be safe to assume the one band member would be from the Mille Lasc band? It seems to me the WI bands are the real problem when netting enters the picture. They don’t care about Mille Lacs.

Did that guy really use “spear chucker” in a public forum? Do we have to wonder why there’s any animosity in the fix mille lacs debate? Very discouraged there’s fellow fisherman still harboring that mentality.

Because spear chucker could only mean what? I think he is referring to the dark house spearers. I don’t think calling them spear chuckers is an inaccurate descriptive statement. But as usual in this day and age….always assume the worse and cry foul.

NM

Taken from an article about the Input Committee meeting…. and now I know why there was only 1 Native on the committee… there is another “group” really making the decisions… with NO INPUT being considered. Now the Input Committee members are an “outside observer”… not my words, but theirs.

Members also questioned the transparency of a separate “technical committee” consisting of experts from the DNR and local American Indian bands, which made the call on what level of fishing was biologically safe during this winter’s fishing season.

At a meeting Oct. 15, DNR and tribal biologists agreed to set the winter harvest cap for anglers at 5,000 pounds or less. The total walleye harvest last winter was 3,100 pounds.

The DNR and the tribal bands were able to allow that number because September fish assessment data showed spawning-age walleye and walleye from the 2013 year class were above benchmarks, the DNR said.

In response to a question from the advisory committee Wednesday on why there weren’t spaces open for advisory committee members to observe the Oct. 15 technical committee meeting, DNR Fisheries head Don Pereira said tribal band members didn’t like the idea and were of the opinion outside observers would have a chilling effect on the discussion.

“They’re just very cautious and guarded,” Pereira said.

Jamie Edwards, the representative of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe on the advisory committee, listened to the meeting via conference call but did not comment during the proceedings.

All the more reason to not drop your boat or set foot on that lake again for the foreseeable future.
Its a complete mess and the post immediately above prove its the tail wagging the dog and these “focus groups” special interest committees either have no interest in the recovery of the lake OR are appeasing to the local business owners. I don’t think its both of these, its more likely the latter.

My family and I have fond memories of many days fishing on this lake, but I will not put on penny of my money in that area again until some real thought is put toward a solution.
The second the Governor stated “there will be ice fishing this winter” on Mille Lacs, my hopes were lost that something logical would be done.
Maybe I should hold my breath to hear what the size limits of the “up to 5000#” will be. Maybe there is hope yet. I hope they target fish over 24″.